Token market

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses meaningful traits: concentration data is shares-only with no addresses, moves are 'a sequence, never a cause' (an explicit anti-causality caveat), and there is a 'not price advice' disclaimer. These guard against real misinterpretations. Missing freshness/lag, error behavior for unknown slugs, and response size expectations keep it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening question and the body is information-dense with no filler sentences — every clause names a returned data family. It reads as a run-on enumeration with heavy parentheticals, which costs a little scannability but wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the extensive return-value enumeration is somewhat redundant but harmless, and safety is covered by annotations. Combined with the moves semantics and the privacy/causality caveats, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling routing, freshness, and unknown-slug error behavior are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully explains `include=["moves"]` — the one parameter with no schema description — including what it adds and how it pairs with published building events. `days` and `min_change_pct` are left to the schema, and min_change_pct's relationship to the moves option is only loosely implied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening question 'Does this token still trade?' plus the enumeration of returned data (price, liquidity, volume/trades by day, lifecycle, pools, concentration, contract checks) makes clear this retrieves market/trading context for a token slug. The verb is implicit ('get') and no sibling is named for contrast, but an agent can distinguish it from get_contract or get_project_snapshot from the content list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the rhetorical framing — reach for this when you need to know whether/how a token trades. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many siblings (get_project_snapshot, get_contract, get_changes). The include=["moves"] note gestures at a mode switch but is framed as parameter behavior, not selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.